Am 13.01.20 um 05:40 schrieb [email protected]:
Jurg—
I am continuing to study your papers regarding SO(4) physics. The
latest is your item on ResearchGate “Nuclear & Particle Physics
version 2.0 < SO(4) physics > Main achievements” of September, 2019.
Some questions and comments follow:
1. In the introduction and throughout the detailed sections you refer
to rotations of a something. It seems that the rotating entity is
a real charge of a certain magnitude relative to classical
physical constants. Is this what the SO(4) modeling assumes?
The natural trajectory of EM-flux (= magnetic field lines) in SO(4) is a
complex 2,3,5 or 8 fold rotation. A EM flux that spans the full Clifford
torus surface (Moves through all 16 hyper quadrants) needs to do 8 360
degree full rotations. In free space EM-flux (= magnetic field lines)
travel outwards (radial), at light speed, starting at the source, what
typically is a harmonic moving charge. In dense space the EM flux orbits
are closed "loops" what I call rotation. This is pretty much what you
call spinors in classic theory but with one more dimension.
As EM flux is equivalent to energy flux = mass it also follows
mechanical laws for mass. In each rotation dimension mechanical rotation
energy is stored. This can be directly seen in the magic nucleus 28-Si
that has the second torus rigid momentum (=7/4, in body rotation)
proportion added to the protons 9/8 diameter axial rotation. (Always
seen as a projection to classic space! ) ( Also seen in 56/84 symmetric!
nucleons)
Be aware that EM-flux alone is "mass less" or virtual mass only. Real
mass is generated on Biot-Savart coupling, but we know that the nucleus
only works with such coupling and thus it is OK to use the term mass.
1. Also in the introduction you indicate: “ A uniform time axis is a
mathematical trick that allows us to model events that change the
relation between an old and a new state in a regular fashion. But
from the more fundamental information theory we know that there is
no global time and we can only model phenomena that are based on a
partial order of events.” I would infer that time is a virtual
concept—not a real dimension. Is this a correct inference?
Time is of course a virtual concept and works fine for classic problems.
Anybody that would like to have a basic proof for the impossibility of a
global time axes (communication between entities, also called
stopping/halting problem) should read basic information theory.
1. The Introduction refers to various references for background
theory and other references are made throughout the paper. A list
of references is desirable.
The literature reference is after the theory, before the LENR part end
of chpt. 10. Sorry I just added the LENR part.... I poste it below!
1. The NPP2.0 seems to include 3 real space dimensions and up to 3
more dimensions. Are these additional dimensions described by a
continuous numerical scale or an eigenvalue or finite element
space dimension or some other measure?
SO(4) has 6 dimension O(4) (Euklids 4 rotations) is the center symmetry
part given by the geometry of the Clifford torus (2 sided 8 rotations).
The tricky part is to understand that the whole torus itself can have
one more rotation, what is responsible for the virtual charge that binds
all nuclear EM flux.
1. Most of the constants NPP2.0 includes involve time and distance.
If time is not a global dimension, then it seems the constants are
nothing more than virtual (not real) ideas. **
**
We all stay in "real" space and can only do measurements in real space.
Thus all calculations/experiments we can do must be performed or mapped
to real space. Such mappings are tricky as the group measure for one
radius is 2^1/2 . Even more complicated is the understanding/distinction
between real and virtual mass.
A change in reference frame usually includes 2 radial dimensions what
gives a factor of 2. If e.g an electron (= charge mass) moves from the
"chemical" orbit to the nucleus then the virtual charge mass is 2 times
larger, what reduces the effective= real charge mass.
There is not all info in the summary as in reality I should write a
book. The full rotation matrix is in fact in one of the first
versions... Also the quite interesting classic! virtual deuterium model
can be found there. Not even to mention the gamma ray calculations.
J.W.
[1] B.I. Ivlev Conversion of zero point energy into high-energy photons
Instituto de F ́ısica, Universidad Auto ́noma de San Luis Potos ́ı, San
Luis Potos ́ı, 78000 Mexico, Revista Mexicana de F ́ısica *62 *(2016) 83–88
[2] Lipinski WO2014189799 united gravity about LiP (H*) fusion.
[3] Leonardo Chiatti, Quantum Jumps and Electrodynamical Description
[4] 2016: Mills, Randell L., The GRAND UNIFIED THEORY of CLASSICAL
QUANTUM MECHANICS;ISBN 978-0-9635171-5-9 (2016) online.
[5] T. Schenkel*, 1, A. Persaud1, H. Wang1, P. A. Seidl1, R. MacFadyen1,
C. Nelson1, W. L. Waldron1, J.-L. Vay1, G. Deblonde2, B. Wen3, Y.-M.
Chiang3, B. P. MacLeod4, and Q. Ji1, Investigation of light ion fusion
reactions with plasma discharges;
arXiv1905.03400
[6] J.A.Wyttenbach NPP 2.1, researchgate, (2018, online),
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Nuclear-and-particle-physics-20
[7] Leif Holmlid, Emission spectroscopy of IR laser-induced processes in
ultra-dense deuterium D(0): Rotational transitions in D(0) with spin
values s 1⁄4 2, 3 and 4,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2016.10.091
[8] Robert Jason Parsley , THE BIOT-SAVART OPERATOR AND ELECTRODYNAMICS
ON BOUNDED SUBDOMAINS OF THE THREE-SPHERE, DISSERTATION University of
Pennsylvania, 2004
[10] Gertrud E. Konrad Measurement of the Proton Recoil Spectrum in
Neutron Beta Decay with the Spectrometer aSPECT: Study of Systematic
Effects ; Phd Thesis. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz (2011)
(page 18)
*Bob*
**
**
**
*-----------------------------------------*
**
**
**
**
**
*From: *Jürg Wyttenbach <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Wednesday, January 8, 2020 12:31 PM
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Mystery Hiding Inside Every Atom
The quark picture of SM is bare nonsense as nobody ever could measure
a mass of any quark better than two bits what is nothing. Quarks are
not particles rather resonances of a complex wave ensemble that forms
e.g. the proton. All reasoning using standard model is a dead end as
even the math is provable incomplete - not able to correctly handle a
three body problem.
The article you reference already in the first sentence presents
provable nonsense, as we know today that a proton & neutron is not
bound by the strong force. This only starts after 4-He! and only holds
for the nuclear core mass.
I recommend to read into the SO(4) model :
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Nuclear-and-particle-physics-20
The structure of the nucleus is much more complex than SM thinks and
on the other side much simpler to handle if you understand the correct
physics behind mass. SO(4) physics gives the correct internal
structure of a proton/neutron and shows how you e.g. get the correct
gamma lines of 6-Li a simple enough nucleus. (This is not in the summary!)
J.W.
Am 08.01.20 um 18:14 schrieb H LV:
There's a Giant Mystery Hiding Inside Every Atom in the Universe
By Rafi Letzter - Staff Writer
No one really knows what happens inside an atom. But two competing
groups of scientists think they've figured it out. And both are
racing to prove that their own vision is correct.
Here's what we know for sure: Electrons whiz around "orbitals" in
an atom's outer shell. Then there's a whole lot of empty space.
And then, right in the center of that space, there's a tiny
nucleus — a dense knot of protons and neutrons that give the atom
most of its mass. Those protons and neutrons cluster together,
bound by what's called the strong force. And the numbers of those
protons and neutrons determine whether the atom is iron or oxygen
or xenon, and whether it's radioactive or stable.
Still, no one knows how those protons and neutrons (together known
as nucleons) behave inside an atom. Outside an atom, protons and
neutrons have definite sizes and shapes. Each of them is made up
of three smaller particles called quarks, and the interactions
between those quarks are so intense that no external force should
be able to deform them, not even the powerful forces between
particles in a nucleus. But for decades, researchers have known
that the theory is in some way wrong. Experiments have shown that,
inside a nucleus, protons and neutrons appear much larger than
they should be. Physicists have developed two competing theories
that try to explain that weird mismatch, and the proponents of
each are quite certain the other is incorrect. Both camps agree,
however, that whatever the correct answer is, it must come from a
field beyond their own....
https://www.livescience.com/mystery-of-proton-neutron-behavior-in-nucleus.html?fbclid=IwAR0IlQmBawS5EkgkaXxl9SET0bExL-su9Yt3dETNlsea0G9AfWzLV7-7OHQ
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06
